Image: Anthony Watts
Allow me to share with you a speech given by one of my sound colleagues here in the European Parliament. Derk Jan Eppink is a Dutch national representing Belgium who sits with us in our Euro-sceptic ECR group. He delivered this speech, entitled “A religion without a God” at a book launch for “Blauwe Planeet” – the newest book by Czech President, and fellow climate realist, Vaclav Klaus. – Roger Helmer MEP
At the occasion of launching Blauwe Planeet
By Derk Jan Eppink
May 25 2011
A religion without a God
Last weekend on May 21, American Christian preacher Harold Camping, once again encountered his ‘Disappointment Day’. For years he announced the end of times, predicting May 21 to be Judgment Day. On that day, the world would be destroyed and only ‘a chosen few’ would make it to heaven.
On Judgment Day, the preacher took a seat in front of his television to await news events. He expected a live report of CNN covering a wave of earthquakes that ultimately would lead to global demise.
But nothing happened.
Instead, CNN focused on the Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn who lost his way and senses in a New York hotel room. For ‘DSK’ indeed, the world collapsed. The preacher was disappointed that apocalypses remained confined to only one person and possibly some of his friends in Paris belonging to la gauche caviar. The preacher fled to a motel to escape international media.
Generally, the advantage of religion is that you do not have to take ‘facts’ into account. Like doomsday announcer Camping, you simply believe and preach, hoping that facts will follow. Western political elites live in a secularized world, a world without God. But religion – a matter of belief – does apparently remain a need of human mankind. In particular, progressive political elites have abolished God, while clinging to notoriously religious features like ‘fear’, ‘guilt’, ‘final judgement’, ‘redemption’, ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’, as part of their political philosophies.
God is gone, but the rest stayed on. Climate Change is just an example of this phenomenon. The concept can only be effective if there is ‘guilt’ (politically incorrect behaviour of human mankind), ‘fear’ (doomsday), if there is ‘sin’ (acts of unprincipled unbelievers), and finally salvation (brought about by the NGO´s of the Green Movement). And if there is somehow a substitute Jesus on top, as impersonated by Al Gore, secular religion gets rooted in political communities trying to turn it into public policy all people have to adhere to.
It takes courage to withstand religion-based political philosophies. You will be depicted as a heretic, as anti-human, as narrow-minded, as autistic and stupid. In fact, like in theocracies any opponent should be dispatched to the dustbin of history. When climate change was minted into religion and subsequently put on the political agenda, carefully orchestrated by celebrities and media consultants, it became a wave of self-righteousness. There was no way to escape.
Yet a few risk-daring politicians rose to the occasion. The first was Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a dissident by inclination. He simply raised factual questions secularized religions can hardly cope with.
That is what he did with Communism which was, after all, an elaborated quasi-religious philosophy pretending to lead human mankind to the ‘Promised Land’ on Earth. And here again, even as President of an EU member state he challenged the fundamentals of a policy pretending to save the world from Doomsday.
Many politicians publish books. Very often, these books are written by other people. Very often, these books are glossy and self-glorifying. Very often, these books make no impact whatsoever and they are finally shelved in the basement of the party headquarter. Mostly, these books are dead upon arrival in the bookstore.
Klaus takes on nonsensical thinking regardless of the status of the author himself. In 2009, he visited the European Parliament to tell his audience that they were ‘disconnected’ from reality. He stated that a Parliament without a legitimate opposition is not really a Parliament. In fact, it is a church singing the gospel of the ‘ever closer Union’. Some members were shocked, left the Plenary and started crying in the corridor. Yesterday, Ivo Belet one of those weeping members, published an opinion article in a Flemish newspaper denouncing NVA-figurehead Bart De Wever for meeting the Anti-Christ from the Czech Republic. Belet, a slavish poodle of EU figureheads, is barking up the wrong tree. The European elite demand flattery and praise; not to criticism, let alone unconventional thinking.
It takes courage to challenge fashionable thinking. For 5 years, I worked in the cabinet of former Commissioner Frits Bolkestein. The Dutch Commissioner was a non federalist and a climate change sceptic in the Commission. For most of his colleagues he was the ‘devil in disguise’. You can imagine the bumpy ride he had in Brussels; he was a ‘non believer’ in a church of devoted federalists.
Once he got a letter from former Belgian Commissioner, Etienne Davignon, a self-appointed viceroy of the United States of Belgium, who said that a non federalist should not be member of the European Commission. He demanded a purge to restore the purity of the Institution.
Ten years ago, Bolkestein publicly said that the Euro would derail if not underpinned by sound monetary policy and iron-clad criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact. He also stated that a common EU immigration policy based on unenforced external borders would generate a political backlash beyond belief. He was laughed at. But now, the political elite of the EU is not laughing anymore. They wasted ten years of policy-making and still, they would rather drive into a brick wall than to admit that they made mistakes.
Jean Marie Dedecker equally has the courage to stick out his neck. As a former Judo player and coach he is not risk adverse. On the contrary, he likes the fray and smashing his opponents on the ground, sooner the better.
And that is precisely why he has written the introduction to the Dutch version of the book President Klaus is launching here today. He belonged to the first in Belgium to challenge the preachers of doom and climate change. Belgium only recently abolished God, and for those who were still in doubt some catholic leaders and priests did the rest.
Flanders was in urgent need for a religious substitute that would be able to micromanage the lives of the people. Obviously, Dedecker was vilified by the political elites and the media which had turned into an extension of the green movement and its preachers in politics.
Both Klaus and Dedecker focused on facts, rather than on speculation and emotional manipulation. They challenged the issues head-on by raising difficult questions, and by doing so they gradually saw the narrative of climate change unravel. Later on, a series of scandals revealed that so-called scientific researchers had manipulated their work in order to serve the dogmas of their beliefs. The Copenhagen Summit resulted in failure and, demonstrations against climate change even had to be cancelled because it was to cold and frosty in the Danish capital.
Now, climate change does not have that mythical spot on the political agenda it had a few years ago. However, it remains on the agenda of political elites in the EU. Some people really do believe; others simply pretend in order to sustain a quasi-progressive image. But the man in the street never embraced climate change and why? The climate has been changing as long as there is a climate, even in times in which people were running around naked and living in caves. One slight change in the activity of the Sun has an impact on the entire [solar system]. Human behaviour is just one of the many elements. Therefore, the religious zeal did not stick because ‘human guilt’ could not be established. And ‘guilt’ is what it takes to make a religion work, even a religion without a God.
Therefore, a democracy needs people like Klaus and Dedecker, people who speak out when nobody does, people who stand out when others follow the flow and people who lash out when many bend towards submission. This book will certainly be a much welcome recipe against political overheating in Flanders and the reality-check which is the necessary basis for any sound public policy.
“…Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite…”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Great pity that no one heeded Ike’s warning. During the excitement of scientific progress made during the Kennedy era , science became elevated to the status of a religion and the ruling elite have used this as a tool to increase taxes and repress personal freedoms.
While both are failures at predicting, there is one very important difference between Camping and Gore.
Camping asks for donations. You decide.
Gore wants to pass laws to take your money. Gore decides for you.
Climate scientists do science, not all of it perfect. The IPCC sumarizes it, primarily for politicians, that is their job. Yes, they too can make mistakes, e.g. the Himalayan glacier melt date. Politicians accept it with open arms if they are to the left or reluctantly if they are to the right (e.g. Chris Christie). Skeptics claim the whole thing is a conspiracy.
Here’s another place to go for the open minded to challenge your views. I’m not asking you to believe me, just go look for yourself. Find your favourite argument: “warming would be good”, “the warming has stopped”, “it’s natural cycles”, “we don’t have enough data”, whatever.
And to quote from that site:
“Skeptical Science is based on the notion that science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means you don’t take someone’s word for it but investigate for yourself. You look at all the facts before coming to a conclusion. In the case of climate science, our understanding of climate comes from considering the full body of evidence.
In contrast, climate skepticism looks at small pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the full picture. Climate skeptics vigorously attack any evidence for man-made global warming yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. If you began with a position of climate skepticism then cherrypick the data that supports your view while fighting tooth and nail against any evidence that contradicts that position, I’m sorry but that’s not genuine scientific skepticism.”
And BTW, on the name change thing. The IPCC (not the IPGW) was formed in 1988. GW is a slang used mainly by the media. Frank Luntz, adviser to George W Bush, pushed for use of the “less frightening” term CC in 2003. If you don’t believe me, check for yourself.
Ironically, the High Priest of CAGW also sowed the seeds of its destruction – he invented the internet.
Robert Swan said:
“If you are bemoaning political sceptics, you should bemoan the political believers too.
Gladly! I find eco-warriors an embarrassment. Yes, both sides have their sheep. But this does not detract from the science. It’s there, go look for it.
I’m with NJ Gov. Christie, who said (more or less), “GW is happening, AGW is at least part of it, but the RGGI isn’t working, so I canned it”. Or to put it another way, “the science is sound, get over it, now let’s deal with the loony lefty politics”.
We need Vaclav Klaus in the UK.
Here is a link to an audio from a spiritual group which is getting a lot of attention right now. They explain the difference between December 21, 2012 and Camping’s dart board throw prediction. This recording is apparently causing a lot of controversy!
http://www.merkaba.org/audio/camping.htm
John B says:
May 27, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I’m not a “believer”, I just find it harder to accept that 97% of climate scientists, plus the MSM other than Fox, plus all national and international science bodies, etc., etc. are in some sort of conspiracy than to accept that there might be some truth in it. After all, I accept relativity and evolution on the same basis.
Oh, but you are a Believer. You use many of the same types of laughably bogus arguments we have seen here over and over again from Warmist trolls. There is no need of a conspiracy. The climate bandwagon accepts any and all types, in it for their own various reasons. Money, fame, and politics are certainly big factors.
What you don’t seem to realize is that many skeptics/climate realists used to believe, or at least assume that what we were hearing constantly from the MSM must be true. Many, in fact, are or were Democrats who wouldn’t be caught dead listening to FOX. We all come to skepticism from various paths, the common denominator being that we have in fact read. We did not come to skepticism easily, often finding ourselves at odds with family and friends. Many had to keep their skepticism secret, so as not to jeopardize their jobs. The only difference between we skeptics and you and your ilk is that we in fact had an interest in what the debate was about, not simply in confirming what we already thought we knew. It is a pity that you do not seem to have that spark of curiosity, because it is you that needs to read more.
JPeden says:
“For example, its own critical “hot spot” which it predicted for the Tropical Troposphere as CO2′s fingerprint simply did not develop, which actually should have dispoven its CO2=[C]AGW hypothesis according to its own statements. But the ipcc would not allow this empirical disproof or even take the data as a significant challenge to its hypothesis. Instead it only claims to be looking for the “right” data, or possibly trying to manufacture it from the existing data, probably even as we speak”
The tropospheric hotspot is proposed (by climate scientists) to be a signature of warming, however caused, not just of anthropogenic warming. It was never claimed to be a “fingerprint of CO2”. (Almost) nobody denies that there has been warming. That is why the failure to measure the hot spot is thought likely to be a failure in measurement. It could conceivably be a failure in the prediction that there should be such a hot spot, but that is less likely since it is based on well established physics. Either way it has nothing to do with AGW.
Don’t believe me, look it up. Ditto for any other idea you think “disproves” AGW. Look into the science a little deeper.
jorgekafkazar says:
May 27, 2011 at 11:24 am
But if you’re looking for a Messiah figure, who better than James Hansen? He’s sincere (or at least I think he is) and intelligent (mostly) and while he can’t walk on water, he even (admittedly rarely) swims upstream in the river of AGW [propaganda-stuff], unlike others I could name. He likes to get arrested by the authorities, too.
– – – – – – – –
jorgekafkazar,
James Hansen is a better fit for being the Mahatma Ghandi of CAGW instead of being a Christian motif of CAGW.
John
JEM says:
May 27, 2011 at 11:22 am
chris b – the point is that at that time the Church actively deterred the masses from learning Latin as a means of controlling the opportunity to learn.
That the masses were not fluent in Latin much beyond Classical Roman times can hardly be blamed on the Church. I think there wasn’t a lot of reading material lying around until after the printing press and cheap paper were invented.
Do you have any evidence of the Church having “actively deterred the masses from learning Latin”? Jack Chick tracts don’t count as evidence.
John B likes to quote from the Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog, which has been debunked here so many times I’ve lost count. It’s a blog run by a wacked out cartoonist, and it’s about as skeptical as Algore.
John B also likes to quote the totally bogus 97% number of scientists that supposedly believe in runaway global warming – but he doesn’t see the irony: John B is the 3% here who is contradicted by 97% of the regular commentators.
If John B believes he is going to convince the level-headed folks here that white is black, down is up, evil is good, and there is evidence of CAGW, it can only be chalked up to his cognitive dissonance. Poor guy. Cognitive dissonance is practically incurable.
Roger Knights – many thanks for your detailed explanation.
Here’s another thought – the UK government passed the Climate Change Act in 2008 which enshrines IN LAW that we will be reducing our carbon emissions by 80% (yes, that’s EIGHTY PER CENT) by 2050, using 1990 as a baseline. (Big caveat – doesn’t apply if Europe doesn’t do the same – but leaving that aside…)
Supposing we, the UK, fail to meet these criteria..? Who is fined – or goes to jail..? The Prime Minister..? The Energy Secretary..? The whole population..??
@Smokey
I’m not personally trying to convince anyone of anything. All I am saying is, if you have an open mind, go look at the evidence. Don’t take Smokey’s word for it that SkepticalScience.com is debunked pseudo-science, go read it, or anywhere else that presents mainstream science, for yourself. But if you have already made your mind up for ideological reasons, don’t bother.
And actually I do realise I am in a minority here. But that’s OK, I can handle it.
Good speech, the CAGW as religion analogy must absolutely cut these pseudo secular neo-pagans to the quick. Oh well, the analogies are obvious and frankly, in the face of such ambiguous empirical evidence, it is mystifying that people are so enthused by the CAGW meme.
“Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit,” reads the inscription carved above the door to Carl Jung’s home – “Called or not called, the god will be present.”
Jungs inscription means that all people/persons have “religion”, but only some people are conscious of it.
A student of Jung would ask, what collective unconscious archetype is being constellated here? What the heck am I talking about? Big topic, but if you are interested, read the link below for a decent start.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37517232/The-Mythology-of-Archetypes
Roger Helmer has a blog:
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/ -highly recommended.
He’s a British Conservative. The party line is warmist. Many ( most? ) Conservatives aren’t.
If climate science is a religion, does that make “skepticism”, a peculiar off-shoot of it, a cult?
The study of ancient belief systems and the progression to the current is as fascinating to explore as the exploration of magnetic fields, solar influences, climate science, plate tectonics and angular momentum. The leap of logic between the absurd, the believable and the plausible provides an endless supply of study material.
The doomsday proponents are pinning their hopes for a triumphant end to their story line on October 21, 2011 and December 21, 2012, as comet Elenin (c/2010 x1) swoops in. Get big vats of buttered popcorn in advance if you plan to Google the comet. There are many Applewhites still out there.
Global and local actors who play out the role of God on earth aren’t allowed to admit mistakes. Bravado and Ego demand that the earth itself be destroyed and cataclysmic punishment meted out to prove their point. It must be tough to be god but it appears to pay well as long as it lasts.
sceptical, the only thing peculiar around here is you, and your screen name.
John B:
Your above comments repeatedly claim the propoganda provided by the IPCC is real science, and you suggest that people should read that propoganda. But your comments demonstrate you have not read it.
For example, at May 28, 2011 at 4:47 am you assert:
“…The tropospheric hotspot is proposed (by climate scientists) to be a signature of warming, however caused, not just of anthropogenic warming. It was never claimed to be a “fingerprint of CO2″. …“
And you say:
“… Don’t believe me, look it up. …”
I DON’T BELIEVE YOU BECAUSE IT IS A LIE
and I am writing to inform everybody how they can look it up with one click of a mouse.
The most recent so-called scientific Report from the IPCC is the AR4 and it explains the ‘hot spot’ in Chapter 9 from WG1. The pertinent Section is
9.2.2.1 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Response
And it can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
The Section summarises the matter in Figure 9.1. and it is titled:
“Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) well-mixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).”
Only Figures 9.1.c (well-mixed greenhouse gases) and 9.1.f (the sum of all forcings) show the ‘hot spot’.
So, the IPCC says the ‘hot spot’ is only provided by forcing from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” and that forcing is so powerful that it overwhelms all the other forcings.
But the ‘hot spot’ is missing.
Trolls keep coming here to spout the same nonsense as yourself, but they are always confounded because AGW-skeptics do “look it up” which is why we are skeptical of the IPCC propaganda.
Richard
Climate Science isn’t a religion, but uncritical acceptance of CAGW seems to be.
There is a legal basis to assert that belief in AGW is akin to a religion.
and…….
So when we say AGW is like a religion there is some basis for it. ;O)
sceptical says:
May 28, 2011 at 11:20 am
…………………….
I forgot to add the juciest bits.
Ouch! Sceptical, you should be more sceptical.
Here is a little taste of why I am a sceptic. Read and enjoy……. ;>)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL042487.shtml
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
John B said
“May 28, 2011 at 1:55 am
Climate scientists do science, not all of it perfect. The IPCC sumarizes it, primarily for politicians, that is their job. Yes, they too can make mistakes, e.g. the Himalayan glacier melt date. Politicians accept it with open arms if they are to the left or reluctantly if they are to the right (e.g. Chris Christie). Skeptics claim the whole thing is a conspiracy. ”
Perfection has nothing to do with it. The only things that counts are facts, which are neither perfect or imperfect, and models that can be history matched to real measured data. If they can’t be history matched the models are junk.
The absurd claim about the timing of the melting of the Himalayan glaciers is far more than a scientific mistake. It is the stuff causes alarm in the minds of people who rely on MSM for their info – MSM love sensational claims. The MSM reported but did not sensationalize the retraction. No, I can only regard that claim as blatant deliberate headline grabbing dishonesty by the person who made it to sow seeds of fear in peoples’ minds. It is the same sort of claim that Hansen made about the Manhattan docks going under water in 40 years when in fact 23 years after the claim the water level has risen 3″. The absurd prediction lives on in peoples minds and everywhere you look in the media you hear about rising sea levels. A lot of people don’t know that the glacier claim was wrong. So don’t minimize the IPCC skullduggery or incompetence here by saying it was just a mistake.
Your generalisation about politicians on the right reluctantly accepting “it” tells me exactly where you are coming from – a political position, not a scientific one.
And your even wilder claim that skeptics think “the whole thing” is a conspiracy confirms you are thinking in non scientific terms. What conspiracy do the skeptics claim? How many skeptics say this and who are they? Are all skeptics the same.? More myth propagation. If you are going to make generalisations you’d better be prepared to put up or shut up. WUWT got its good reputation by sticking to the facts and demanding logical argument.